Advertisement

Predicting healthcare professionals’ intention to use poison information system in a Malaysian public hospital

  • 5 Accesses

Abstract

Purpose

The main objective of this paper is to determine the predicting factors that influence the intention to use Poison Information System (PIS) among healthcare professionals.

Methods

A quantitative approach was applied, using a five-point Likert scale questionnaire, adapted from previous studies. Data were collected from 167 healthcare professionals working for Malaysian Public Hospitals in Penang. Smart Partial Least Square (PLS) version 3.2.7 were used to analyse the proposed relationships.

Results

The results indicated that attitude and computer anxiety had a significant positive relation to the intention to use PIS among healthcare professionals wherein computer knowledge was found to have had a significant relationship with attitude and computer habit. Apart from that, technical support and training had a positive relationship with perceived ease of use. Surprisingly, computer habit, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, compatibility and facilitating condition did not significantly influence intention to use PIS.

Conclusion

The results of this study provided useful insights for healthcare agencies to understand the underlying elements that could improve the poison information management. The results proved that attitude and computer anxiety were critical factors among healthcare professionals managing poisoning cases in a highly stressful and unpredictable work environment. These factors must, therefore, be considered before implementing PIS in managing poisoning cases. The study also provided an understanding of how to improve system development by utilising the end user’s expectation on the implementation of the system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. 1.

    WHO. Poisoning prevention and management. 2016. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/ipcs/poisons/en/. Accessed 23 July 2019.

  2. 2.

    Tangiisuran B, Jiva M, Ariff AM, Abdul Rani NA, Misnan A, Rashid SM, Dawson AH. Evaluation of types of poisoning exposure calls managed by the Malaysia National Poison Centre (2006–2015): a retrospective review. BMJ Open. 2018;8(12):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024162.

  3. 3.

    Rajasuriar R, Awang R, Hashim SBH, Rahmat HRBH. Profile of poisoning admissions in Malaysia. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2007;26(2):73–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/096032710707185.

  4. 4.

    McLean KE, Henderson SB, Kent D, Kosatsky T. Calls to the British Columbia drug and poison information centre: a summary of differences by health service areas. J Public Health Inf. 2014;6(2):e179.

  5. 5.

    Durigon M, Elliott C, Purssell R, Kosatsky T. Canadian poison control centres: preliminary assessment of their potential as a resource for public health surveillance. Clin Toxicol. 2013;51(9):886–91. https://doi.org/10.3109/15563650.2013.841182.

  6. 6.

    Karimzadeh I, Vazin A, Talebnia N, Hatami-mazinani N. Performance of drug and poison information center within a Referral University Hospital in Southwest of Iran Performance of Drug and Poison Information Center within a Referral University Hospital in Southwest of Iran. 2018.

  7. 7.

    Rhalem N, Aghandous R, Chaoui H, Eloufir R, Badrane N. Role of the Poison control centre of Morocco in the improvement of public health. Asia Pac J Med Toxicol. 2013;2(3):82–6.

  8. 8.

    Leong YH, Ariff AM, Khan HRM, Rani NAA, Majid MIA. Paraquat poisoning calls to the Malaysia National Poison Centre following its ban and subsequent restriction of the herbicide from 2004 to 2015. J Forensic Leg Med. 2018;56:16–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2018.03.007.

  9. 9.

    Magalhães AFA, Caldas ED. Underreporting of fatal poisonings in Brazil—a descriptive study using data from four information systems. Forensic Sci Int. 2018;287:136–41.

  10. 10.

    Vitari C, Ologeanu-Taddei R. The intention to use an electronic health record and its antecedents among three different categories of clinical staff. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3022-0.

  11. 11.

    Awang R, Abd Rahman AF, Wan Abdullah WZA, Lajis R, Abdul Majid MI. Trends in inquiries on poisoning: a five-year report from the National Poison Centre, Malaysia. Med J Malay. 2003;58(3):375–9.

  12. 12.

    Davis F. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989;13(3):319–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(98)00028-0.

  13. 13.

    Ajzen I. Attitudes, traits and actions: disposition prediction of behavior in personality and social psychology. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 1987;20:1–57.

  14. 14.

    Godin G, Bélanger-Gravel A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Healthcare professionals’ intentions and behaviours: a systematic review of studies based on social cognitive theories. Implement Sci. 2008;3(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-3-36.

  15. 15.

    Seth A, Coffie AJ, Richard A, Stephen SA. Hospital administration management technology adoption: a theoretical test of technology acceptance model and theory of planned behavior on HAMT adoption. Am J Public Health. 2019;7(1):21–6. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajphr-7-1-4.

  16. 16.

    Ifinedo P. Empirical study of Nova Scotia Nurses’ adoption of healthcare information systems: implications for management and policy-making. Kerman Univ Med Sci. 2018;7(74):317–27. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2017.96.

  17. 17.

    Ifinedo P. The moderating effects of demographic and individual characteristicson nurses’ acceptance of information systems: a Canadian study. Int J Med Inform. 2016;87:27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.12.012.

  18. 18.

    Poon EG, Jha AK, Christino M, Honour MM, Fernandopulle R, Middleton B, Kaushal R. Assessing the level of healthcare information technology adoption in the United States: a snapshot. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2006;6:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-6-1.

  19. 19.

    Farokhzadian J, Khajouei R, Ahmadian L. Information seeking and retrieval skills of nurses: nurses readiness for evidence based practice in hospitals of a medical university in Iran. Int J Med Inform. 2015;84(8):570–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.03.008.

  20. 20.

    Kivuti Wanjuki L, Chepchirchir A. Computerization readiness. Online Journal of Nursing Informatics. 2011;15(1):9. Retrieved from https://phstwlp2.partners.org:2443/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=2011164327&site=ehost-live&scope=site. Accessed 23 July 2019.

  21. 21.

    Wu JH, Wang SC, Lin LM. Mobile computing acceptance factors in the healthcare industry: a structural equation model. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76(1):66–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.06.006.

  22. 22.

    Igbaria M, Zinatelli N, Cragg P, Cavaye ALM. Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: a structural equation model. MIS Q. 1997;21(3):279–305.

  23. 23.

    International Program on Chemical Safety & World Health Organization. Guidelines for poison control. World Health Organization. 1997.

  24. 24.

    Wendland J, Lunardi GL, Dolci DB. Adoption of health information technology in the mobile emergency care service. RAUSP Manage J, RAUSP-07-2018-0058. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-07-2018-0058

  25. 25.

    Huryk LA. Factors influencing nurses’ attitudes towards healthcare information technology. J Nurs Manage. 2010;18(5):606–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01084.x.

  26. 26.

    Leblanc G, Gagnon MP, Sanderson D. Determinants of primary care nurses’ intention to adopt an electronic health record in their clinical practice. Comput Inform Nurs. 2012;30(9):496–502. https://doi.org/10.1097/NXN.0b013e318257db17.

  27. 27.

    Shirley T, Todd Peter A. Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. information systems research. 1995. Retrieved from https://home.business.utah.edu/actme/7410/TaylorTodd.pdf. Accessed 23 July 2019.

  28. 28.

    Okcu S, Hancerliogullari Koksalmis G, Basak E, Calisir F (2019). Factors affecting intention to use big data tools: an extended technology acceptance model. Springer, Cham, pp. 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03317-0_33.

  29. 29.

    Tsai JM, Cheng MJ, Tsai HH, Hung SW, Chen YL. Acceptance and resistance of telehealth: the perspective of dual-factor concepts in technology adoption. Int J Inf Manage. 2019;49:34–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.03.003.

  30. 30.

    Venkatesh V. Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, acceptance model. Institute for operations research and the management sciences. 2000.

  31. 31.

    Gagnon MP, Ghandour EK, Talla PK, Simonyan D, Godin G, Labrecque M. Electronic health record acceptance by physicians: testing an integrated theoretical model. J Biomed Inform. 2014;48:17–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2013.10.010.

  32. 32.

    Tornatzky LG, Klein KJ. Innovation charactersitic and innovation adoption-implementation: meta-analysis of the finding. IEEE Trans Eng Manage. 1982. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.1982.6447463.

  33. 33.

    Hung SY, Tsai JCA, Chuang CC. Investigating primary health care nurses’ intention to use information technology: an empirical study in Taiwan. Decis Support Syst. 2014;57(1):331–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.09.016.

  34. 34.

    van Raaij EM, Schepers JJL. The acceptance and use of a virtual learning environment in China. Comput Educ. 2008;50(3):838–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.001.

  35. 35.

    Top M, Yılmaz A. Computer anxiety in nursing: an investigation from turkish nurses. J Med Syst. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-014-0163-5.

  36. 36.

    Xue L, Yen CC, Chang L, Chan HC, Tai BC, Tan SB, et al. An exploratory study of ageing women’s perception on access to health informatics via a mobile phone-based intervention. Int J Med Inform. 2012;81(9):637–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.04.008.

  37. 37.

    Venkatesh V, Thong JYL, Xu X. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Q. 2012;36(1):157–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1981.tb02627.x.

  38. 38.

    Bawack RE, Kala Kamdjoug JR. Adequacy of Utaut in clinician adoption of health information systems in developing countries: the case of Cameroon. Int J Med Inform. 2017;109:15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.10.016.

  39. 39.

    Wharrad MAH, Windle R. British Computer Society Primary Health Care Specialist Group, Informatics in primary care. J Innov Health Inform. 2018;25(1):027–37. https://doi.org/10.14236/jhi.v25i1.965.

  40. 40.

    Seethamraju R, Diatha KS, Garg S. Intention to use a mobile-based information technology solution for tuberculosis treatment monitoring—applying a UTAUT model. Inf Syst Front. 2018;20(1):163–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9801-z.

  41. 41.

    Abu-shanab E, Pearson M. Internet banking in Jordan: an Arabic instrument validation process. Int Arab J Inf Technol. 2009;6(3):235–44.

  42. 42.

    Karkonasasi K, Yu-n C, Mousavi SA. Intention to use SMS vaccination reminder and management system among health centers in Malaysia: the mediating effect of attitude. 2011.

  43. 43.

    Ooi KB, Lee VH, Tan GWH, Hew TS, Hew JJ. Cloud computing in manufacturing: the next industrial revolution in Malaysia? Expert Syst Appl. 2018;93:376–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.10.009.

  44. 44.

    Dorsey ER, Topol EJ. State of telehealth. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(2):154–61. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1601705.

  45. 45.

    Article R. State of Telehealth; 2016. p. 154–161. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1601705

  46. 46.

    Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sinkovics RR. The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. Adv Int Mark. 2009;20:277–319. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1474-7979(2009)0000020014.

  47. 47.

    Hulland J. %3c6. Hulland 1999.pdf%3e. 1999. 204:195–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:2%3c195::AID-SMJ13%3e3.3.CO;2-Z

  48. 48.

    Hair FJ Jr, Sarstedt M, Hopkins L, Kuppelwieser GV. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Eur Bus Rev. 2014;26(2):106–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128.

  49. 49.

    Hair J, Hollingsworth CL, Randolph AB, Chong AYL. An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research. Ind Manage Data Syst. 2017;117(3):442–58. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-04-2016-0130.

  50. 50.

    Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J Mark Theory Pract. 2011;19(2):139–52. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202.

  51. 51.

    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press; 1969.

  52. 52.

    Kijsanayotin B, Pannarunothai S, Speedie SM. Factors influencing health information technology adoption in Thailand’s community health centers: applying the UTAUT model. Int J Med Inform. 2009;78(6):404–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.12.005.

  53. 53.

    Dutta B, Peng MH, Sun SL. Modeling the adoption of personal health record (PHR) among individual: the effect of health-care technology self-efficacy and gender concern. Libyan J Med. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/19932820.2018.1500349.

  54. 54.

    Hu PJ, Chau PYK, Sheng ORL, Tam KY. Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telem. J Manage. 1999;16(2):91–112.

  55. 55.

    Lee SY, Lee K. Factors that influence an individual’s intention to adopt a wearable healthcare device: the case of a wearable fitness tracker. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2018;129:154–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.01.002.

  56. 56.

    Zhao Y, Ni Q, Zhou R. What factors influence the mobile health service adoption? A meta-analysis and the moderating role of age. Int J Inf Manage. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.08.006.

  57. 57.

    Asua J, Orruño E, Reviriego E, Gagnon MP. Healthcare professional acceptance of telemonitoring for chronic care patients in primary care. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-12-139.

  58. 58.

    Talukder MS, Chiong R, Bao Y, Hayat Malik B. Acceptance and use predictors of fitness wearable technology and intention to recommend: an empirical study. Ind Manage Data Syst. 2019;119(1):170–88. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-01-2018-0009.

  59. 59.

    Sherer SA, Meyerhoefer CD, Peng L. Applying institutional theory to the adoption of electronic health records in the US. Inf Manage. 2016;53(5):570–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.01.002.

  60. 60.

    Li J, Ma Q, Chan AHS, Man SS. Health monitoring through wearable technologies for older adults: smart wearables acceptance model. Appl Ergon. 2019;75:162–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.10.006.

  61. 61.

    Meri A, Hasan MK, Danaee M, Jaber M. Modelling the utilization of cloud health information systems in the Iraqi public healthcare sector Telematics and Informatics Modelling the utilization of cloud health information systems in the Iraqi public healthcare sector. Telemat Inform. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.12.001.

  62. 62.

    Donaldson LP. Advocacy by nonprofit human service agencies: organizational factors as correlates to advocacy behavior. J Community Pract. 2007;15(3):139–59. https://doi.org/10.1300/J125v15n03.

  63. 63.

    Farah MF. Mobile-banking adoption: empirical evidence from the banking sector in Pakistan. Int J Bank Mark. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-10-2017-0215.

  64. 64.

    Rubin A, Ophoff J. Investigating adoption factors of wearable technology in health and fitness. Open Innov Conf (OI). 2018;2018:176–86.

  65. 65.

    Hossain A, Quaresma R, Rahman H. Investigating factors influencing the physicians’ adoption of electronic health record (EHR) in healthcare system of Bangladesh. 2019.

  66. 66.

    Dasgupta S, Gupta B. Espoused cultural values as antecedents of internet technology adoption in an emerging economy. Inf Manage. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.01.004.

  67. 67.

    Vanneste D, Vermeulen B, Declercq A. Healthcare professionals’ acceptance of BelRAI, a web-based system enabling person-centred recording and data sharing across care settings with interRAI instruments: a UTAUT analysis. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-129.

Download references

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia for funding this research under the Research University Grant Scheme (1001/PPAMC/8012234).

Author information

Correspondence to Yulita Hanum P. Iskandar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Iskandar, Y.H.P., Subramaniam, G., Majid, M.I.A. et al. Predicting healthcare professionals’ intention to use poison information system in a Malaysian public hospital. Health Inf Sci Syst 8, 6 (2020) doi:10.1007/s13755-019-0094-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Poison information system (PIS)
  • Intention to use
  • Technology acceptance model (TAM)
  • Healthcare